Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance v. City of Pine Bluff

thе Fifth year agree two other circuits We with and Ninth During past IIRIRA with similar issues to Circuits that the 1996 amend presented have been gave Attorney court. In all three ments General substan the one before the granting of re- tial discretion in cancellation seeking alien cancellation cases the voluntarily departed previously removal his reasonable conclusion that moval had voluntary in departure of forced removal. under the threat circumstances interrupted of this case the alien’s сontinu Ashcroft, In Mireles-Valdez v. in physical presence country ous this (5th Cir.2003), the alien had been within his discretion. voluntary departure at the border granted during proceeding, reasons, than a removal rather For these the decision of the concluded that his and the Fifth Circuit BIA is affirmed. physi-

departure had ended his continuous at presence

cal in the United States. Id. (“The at does not state statute issue provisions are exhaustive.

Attorney General has determined Attorney not. defer to the

they are [W]e The court con- interpretation.”).

General’s Attorney General’s inter- cluded that the NATIONAL PENNSYLVANIA MUTU because volun- pretation was reasonable AL CASUALTY INSURANCE COM offered at the end tary departure, whether PANY, Pennsylvania Corporation, at the deportation proceedings of formal Plaintiff/Appellant, border, clemency granted is a form of Contracting, Inc., Cannon promise in return for his not to the alien Plaintiff, Intervenor at An alien cannot return. 349 F.3d agreement consent to this later retract his v. voluntary by arguing departure that his BLUFF, PINE CITY OF presence the continuous re- did break Defendant/Appellee, discretionary relief. Id. quired for latеr Ashcroft, in Vasquez-Lopez The alien Inc.; Construction, David Mitchell curiam), reh’g denied (per 343 F.3d 961 Mitchell; Mitchell; David R. Theresa (9th Cir.2003), had also de- 343 F.3d 961 Dix, Jr.; Karl F. Pine Bluff National voluntary parted accepting departure after Bank; Company, Nobel Insurance De in Ninth ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‍con- lieu of removal. The Circuit fendants. Attorney General had cor- cluded Surety America, Association of Amicus

rectly interpreted the IIRIRA because the Appellant. on Behalf “physically present” alien had not been country while in and his “ab- Mexiсo Pennsylvania Mutual Casual- National inadvertent, casual, sence was not or oth- Pennsyl- ty Company, Insurance oc- lacking significance” erwise but Plaintiff, Corporation, vania he agreement curred under an which had to leave the United States consented Contracting, Intervenor Cannon (“We at con- and not return. Id. 973-74 Plaintiff/Appellant, Attorney clude that the BIA’s and the reading of the statute is reason- General’s deference.”). Bluff, Defendant/Appellee, worthy of our of Pine able Inc.; Construction, Mitchell David Mitchell; Mitchell; Theresa R.

David Jr.; National Dix, Pine Bluff F.

Karl Company, De-

Bank; Insurance Nobel

fendants. Mutual Casual-

Pennsylvania National Pennsylva- Company, a

ty Insurance Plaintiff/Appellee, Corporation,

nia Contracting, Intervenor

Cannon

Plaintiff/Appellee, Bluff,

City of Pine

Defendant/Appellant, Construction, Inc.; Mitchell

David Mitchell; Mitchell; Theresa R.

David Jr.; Dix, Pine National Bluff F.

Karl Company, De-

Bank; Nobel Insurance

fendants. America, Amicus

Surety Association Appellee. Behalf of

on 02-3646, 02-3600, 02-3735.

No. Appeals, States Court

Eighth Circuit. Sept. 2003.

Submitted: 15, 2004.

Filed: Jan. En Banc Rehearing

Rehearing and Feb.

Denied: argument on be- pi'esented

Counsel who Gary A. appellant half of the was Wilson appearing appel- PA. Also on Philadelphia, P. Patel of Philadel- lant’s brief were Salil E. Brownstein. phia and Bettina argument on be- presented who Counsel M. Donovan appellee half of the was David Rock, AR. of Little BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, Before RILEY, Judges. Circuit WOLLMAN, Judge. Circuit case, City of Pine suretyship In this Bluff, (City), Pennsylvania Arkansas Casualty Insurance Com- National Mutual (Penn National) cross-appeal the dis- pany findings regarding the con- trict court’s surеtyship, equitable subrogation, tours municipal immunity in Arkansas. We City reimburse must conclude it suffered for the losses Penn National general City released funds to after the general notice of the til despite approximately contractor June 2001. On that date, City request contractor’s default and from the returned to Penn National a completed pending inquiry to withhold funds investi- status form indicating that the reverse and remand contract had been gation. We therefore terminated and that the final judgment price Penn “disрut- with directions enter was ed.” The form also contained a National. notation City that the had received some mil- $2.8 I. lion claims from unpaid subcontractors supplying labor and pro- materials on the After severe ice storms littered ject. Pine Bluff with debris December City applied Emergency for Federal By letter dated June (FEMA) Management Agency funds and National requested not re- general

hired contractor David Mitchell any lease funds allocated to the project (Mitchell) up Construction tо clean the aft without Penn National’s written consent. ermath. The contract required the The letter stated that Penn National was percent ten any progress withhold investigating unpaid subcontractor claims payments retainage,1 to Mitchell as and and potential subrogation asserted agreed pass Mitchell to on payment to to letter, funds. Despite the working project subcontractors on the however, City the Pine Bluff ap- Council days any progress payment within ten of proved a settlеment and release with City. Acting surety, from the as Penn Na later, Mitchell a days paying few Mitchell performance tional underwrote a combined and approximately Mitchell’s creditors $2 payment and bond for the project the million.3 Although the record does penal sum of million.2 indicate whether this amount $3.5 included City FEMA monies the prior received to As the progressed, work Mitchell and letter, Penn National’s City June 15 City began arguing pricing over later received FEMA payments totaling hauling Mitchell’s allegedly dеbris ineli- approximately million. Dist. Ct. Or- $1.8 gible for FEMA reimbursement. On 24, of Sept. der 2002 at 4. 26, 2001, March City terminated its contract with Mitchell and arranged for Penn National brought against suit City others, employees complete to City originally the work— seeking a de- timet.4, actions quia claratory Penn National did not discover un- judgment and a bill Retainage percentage 1. suppliers paid "[a] of what a land- laborers and material will be if contractor, pays a general owner withheld until the Fidelity contractor defaults. Int'l Co., 2; satisfаctorily completed construction has been Ins. Fed. 41 Cl. at 708 n. R.J. Bob (7th Contractor, Dictionary ....” Excavating Blades Law 1317 Jones Inc. v. Firemen’s 1999). Ed. Ins. 486 (1996). conjunction, performance 2. Often issued in $997,435.90 payment Mitchell, usually City required bonds are 3. The released to See, $512,191.81 Bank, public projects. e.g., works 40 U.S.C. to Pine Bluff National 3131(b) (West Mitchell, 2003); § «money which Ark.Code Ann. had loaned to cf. $465,752.03 (Michie 1996). § Chancery performance 22-9-401 A to the Court of Jeffer- owner, County protects satisfy judg- son obligee, ensuring bond one of Mitchell’s or project mеnt completion general creditors. if the contractor Structures, Inc., defaults. In re Modular (3d Cir.1994); fears," F.3d Fidelity n. 1 Literally meaning Int’l quia "because he Ins. Co. v. United legal 41 Fed. Cl. per- timet is doctrine "[a] that allows a (1998). payment n. A bond ensures that son to seek relief from a future (8th Cir.2003), inter- F.3d and Arkansas subcontractors also unpaid Various sepa- governs inquiry. or instituted that litigation in the substantive law vened National on the against Penn Tompkins, rate suit Erie R.R. Co. v. 304 U.S. then inves- (1938); Penn National payment bond. 82 L.Ed. 1188 58 S.Ct. subcontractor claims as ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‍tigated the various Garvey, Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. progressed. litigation (8th Cir.2003). Before F.3d however, merits, reaching we must ultimately determined Penn National arguments. consider two threshold subcontractors, Rental Service two (Rental) and Corporation Cannon Con- City initially contends (Cannon), tracting possessed valid bond requested “damages” Penn National never each, Penn National settled with claims. any request waived and has therefore ways. originally in different Rental albeit monetary reject argument this relief. We $204,492.24, totaling claims but аc- alleged reading of the amended because liberal payment cepted an unconditional survey parties’ ar complaint and $165,000.00 in full settlement. Cannon the district court reveals guments before unpaid claimed an balance of originally pursuing, that Penn National was inter $669,869.93, accepted but an unconditional alia, recovery municipal pockets. from $400,000.00 payment plus an escrowed Gibson, 8(a); Conley Fed.R.Civ.P. $269,869.93,the release of which is condi- 41, 47-48, 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 355 U.S. 78 S.Ct. in this tioned on Penn National’s success (1957). has сonsis Given return, In lawsuit.5 both Rental Can- immunity tently argued damages, assigned their expressly non it is difficult to understand how the Penn National. regarding claim lack of notice can now sought National then to amend its Penn request prejudice National’s aris against City the to include re- complaint ing therefrom. relief, quests declaratory equitable for elec also mentions the including equitable subrogation. After rule, asserting that Penn tion-of-remedies cases, consolidating the district related pri a of request National’s fоr declaration permitted court amendment and simulta- ority to contract funds and to recover the neously parties’ considered the motions necessarily repugnant from others funds is sum, summary judgment. In the district recovery coffers. Once to a rejected City’s that it court the contention why. Designed again, we cannot fathom was immune from suit and concluded that recovery single for a prevent double did not furnish Penn subrogation Flakes, injury, Potato Smart Sunshine rights against National with actionable the (8th 684, Cir.2002), the 686 L.L.C. City. applies rule when a election-of-remedies II. party possesses appropriate two but incon deliberately pursues sistent remedies and summary We review the district court’s novo, remedy one to the other’s exclusion. Van judgment rulings Evergreen de Invs., v. Ark. Bail Bondsman Li- Graphics, LLC v. FCL 334 Curen Prof'l $269,869.93, $400,000, probable specific right yond up to the full harm to a or interest.” 1999). (7th greater Diclionaiy plus any Ed. award than Blades Law 1260 half of $669,869.93. Penn National's suit is un- If does not recover more than successful or prevails, If Penn National Cannon will re- hоwever, $400,000, money will money the escrowed ceive an amount the escrowed in equaling be to Penn National. whatever Penn National recovers be- returned

951 47, Bd., 43, partially tlement involves a conditional 84 S.W.3d censing Ark.App. 79 (2002). as- prohibit payment. thought rule does not The district court the 58 action, of Sexton multiple of causes payment presented sertion conditional a “boot- Firm, Ark. Milligan, 329 P.A. v. Lato strapping” problem and concluded that (1997), nor does it fully Penn National had not Can- satisfied remedies, cоnsistent pursuit of preclude claim, disagree. non’s but we the adjudication, long final so as even to Cardozo, noted As Justice satisfaction. receives but one plaintiff because, necessary full satisfaction is “[i]f Co., Chevrolet Kapp v. Bob Sullivan different, holding surety were the (1960). Ark. protection would reduce the of the bond to Here, City’s contention that Penn Na- in the extent of its dividend the assets of declaratory remedy only tional elected American the debtor.” Sur. 296 U.S. Penn National also re- misplacеd because at 9. Full satisfaction also S.Ct. sought equitable subrogation quested prevents competition rights between the of Seeking funds. recovery specified of original and the creditor to the pursu- to funds and priority declaration original creditor’s detriment: “[U]ntil reflects ing judgment equal in an amount satisfied, wholly ought creditor be there remedies. To no assertion of inconsistent can no be interference with his wrong City paid establish might, or his securities even bare which liable, the court must party and should be him in possibility, prejudice Or embarrass that Penn National was enti- first conclude any way the collection of the residue of payment. to priority tled Matthews, 141 Ark. his claim.” Barton v. contours of next consider the We (1919) (internal S.W. suretyship. Eq equitable subrogation omitted); quotation Restatement cf. surety’s of a subrogation uitable is one (Third) Guaranty § 27 Suretyship reducing mechanisms for loss. principal cmt. b. Prairie State Bank v. United case, In this debris-removal 227, 231, 32 Ct.Cl. S.Ct. 164 U.S. and associated bond created two relevant (1896) (recognizing sure 41 L.Ed. obligations: specified removal of debris “elementary.”). ty’s subrogation rights as payment for labor and materials. The law, the doctrine Arising by operation former City unilaterally removed the obli- surety acquire the to and assert permits charged with gation, so Penn National was rights parties of those whom the sure the payment under its satisfying the latter Foods, Chicago Inc. v. ty pays. Welch has occurred. bond—an event which 467, Co., 515, 17 Ark. Title Ins. 341 S.W.3d nothing to Rent- Mitchell and the owe (2000). 470 of the al and Cannon virtue subcontrac- equitable A to sub prerеquisite Penn National. De- tors’ settlement with surety’s the full satisfaction of rogation is in this spite Cannon’s derivative interest any underlying obligation. debt or Amer does, lawsuit, any re- possess Cannon Westing New York v. ican Sur. Co. of maining against claim for “residue” Mitch- Co., 133, 137, Mfg. 296 U.S. house Elec. City and there is no risk of ell or the (1935); Paul 80 L.Ed. 105 St. S.Ct. Penn National’s competition between Guard, Murray Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. rights arising and Cannon’s rights Ark. S.W.3d the same undivided interest. (2001). here whether par-ties dispute The beneficiary pay of the As an intended Penn National’s settlement with Cannon bоnd, reject to a set- ment Cannon was free requirement satisfies this because the 31(b). Thus, § if and further were still hold- payment conditional partially funds, It in Ar- rights ing retainage under the bond. or contract extant litigate its litigation— provide further for chose to avoid kansas law would Penn Nation- stead possessed reimbursement, any potential defenses and Penn National al’s $400,000plus a certain priority Penn National —for would be entitled to over Mitchell risk of an uncertain interest the added and Mitchell’s creditors. possible National’s lawsuit with City promptly settled with $669,869.93.6 beyond of monies reward Mitchell, however, money to and disbursed This, ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‍think, prerog we was its contractual finding a that Penn National would have so ative, accept and if Cannon was satisfied to otherwise been entitled to withheld funds After settle payment, it as full so are we. only through equitable subrogation part is National, cannot ment with Penn Cannon story. aptly of the The district court ob (and not) “complain that ... [Penn does Ar precious little “[t]here served subrogation position National’s] makes light law which sheds on what hap kansas than it would have been less favorable government entity a pens when with notice ” Napoleon .... Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. surety may from a there be outstand Co., 108 Ark. 158 S.W. Hill Cotton bond, ing ignores claims on the the notice (1913). 1082, 1084 [general] and disburses the funds to the Arkansas, elsewhere, In as D. contractor his creditor.” Ct. Order surety completes pays a work or

when 24, 2002, at Sept. 15. We think this equitable material suppliers, laborers and well, and, statement defines the issue ab subrogation pеrmits proceed controlling authority, sent state our obli retainage remaining contract against gation predict is to how the Arkansas Su Equilease reimbursement. funds preme Court would rule on the issue. See Co., v. Fid. & Corp. United States Guar. Lines, Smith v. Chemical Leaman Tank (1978); (8th Cir.2002). Inc., 285 F.3d Pearlman v. Reliance Ins. 371 U.S. urges Penn National apply us to (1962) 132, 139, 232, 9 83 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d support series federal decisions which (“[T]he subroga same rules as to proposition obligee may that a bond ... surety completes tion exist whether a surety’s not increase thе risk or otherwise whether, though not called surety’s subrogation rights. undermine the contract, upon complete pays it States, e.g., Corp. Nat’l Sur. materialmen.”). surety’s laborers and (Fed.Cir.1997); 1544-46 right typically superior monies is to these Transamerica Premier Ins. Co. v. United general to' the contractor’s (1994) 32 Fed. Cl. 313-14 assignees bankruptcy or estate in becahse (Transamerica); Home Indem. Co. surety’s rights vest “full satisfac upon States, United 180 Ct.Cl. 376 F.2d tion for default and relate back to the time (1967). Although 892-93 no Arkansas suretyship the bond or contrаct of was facts, precise Corp., entered into.” 565 decision covers these we be Equilease (citation omitted); Supreme at 126 Restate lieve that the Arkansas Court (Third) Guaranty Suretyship ment of and would steer a course consistent with feder- claim, 5, supra, surety 6. As indicated in the settle- initial in which case the footnote merely provides placed ment that Cannon will receive half of would have its interest in reim- $669,869.93. any beyond right recovered amount bursement ahead of the subcontractor's anаlysis might payment contrary point Our be if the to situation to the different subcon- —a suretyship generally. negotiated beyond payment bond and tractor received no benefit of

953 principles, eq- These considered with the Seaboard Sur. Co. al decisions. See sup- uitable of laborers and material Bank & Trust First Nat’l Cir.1941) (and (8th in ab- (predicting, pliers subrogated therefore the sure- 291 authority, funds, Dakota ty) payment remaining that South to have sence of state regarding sure- follow federal cases courts to reсognize would led federal the obli- ty priority). gee’s duty as a “stakeholder” to ensure (contract application of collateral proper that in In contracts for services retainages) upon appropriate funds and upon or in installments payment clude general of the default. notice contractor’s progress payments unearned completion, Transamerica, 314; 32 Fed. Cl. at collateral, or retainage security, are and Int’l Fid. Ins. Co. cre ensuring discharge obligatiоns of the (1992); Home Cl.Ct. Indem. contract. underlying the Restate ated Indeed, Corp., 376 F.2d at 894. “the en- (Third) Guaranty Suretyship ment of and subrogation tire doctrine of in suretyship Transamerica, a; at § cmt. Fed. Cl. dependent upon the immediate invest- Moreover, surety bond embod “[t]he obligations ment of the creditor with the of any change material principle ies the any rights whenever or trustee interests contract, that the in the bonded increases debtor, debt, applicable to the are the surety’s obligation risk or without ” in his cоntrol .... Arthur placed Adel- consent, surety the rela surety’s affects Stearns, Suretyship bert Law of F.3d at tionship.” Corp., Nat’l Sur. (James Ed.1951). Elder, ed., § L. 6.46 5th Mims, 1544; Ark. Hawkins v. If, default, appropriate after notice of the (1880) (“Of course, if at *2 the WL government pay chooses to funds to the securities, any of his or obligee releases eq- contractor that are or general become princi into a new contract with the enters uitably surety, government owed to the the varying original the terms of the pal, upon is liable for the actual loss visited the non-assenting surety ... the agreement 1548; surety. Corp., Nat’l Sur. 118 F.3d at discharged, for acts increase will be such Transamerica, 314; 32 Fed. Cl. at ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‍Re- risk.”). surety’s By settling with the the (Third) Suretyship and Guar- statement releasing payments general contractor anty § 31 cmt. c. they are retainage before due Here, conflicting faced with claims all, obligee due at the increases the sure contractor, general unpaid the the subcon- ty’s impairs surety’s ability to risk tractors, surety, decided if through subrogation be made whole termi- pay despite premature to Mitchell upon discharge surety is later called contract, Mitch- knowledge nation of the underlying obligation. Restatement default, and notice from the ell’s (Third) § Suretyship Guaranty in- remaining security. preserve Priest, c; Kurrus v. 342 Ark. cmt. see also superior Mitchell over (2000) (“[W]here correctly chose 669, 676 29 S.W.3d unpaid claims of the subcontrac- pledged has been to se collateral which whose work earned the contract funds tors removed, repayment cure the of bоnds is Penn National place. in the first Because obligation of the contract between then satisfy independently obligated to sub- was and the bond issuer has the bondholder bond, payment contractor claims under the impaired”); Myers been v. First State Contractor, Excavating Bank, see R.J. Bob Jones Ark. (1987) (Under v. Firemen’s Ins. Inc. general suretyship Arkansas (1996), City’s deci- the law, surety’s a 920 S.W.2d preserve a creditor must collateral.). Penn to settle with Mitchell increased in sion right of recourse Bal party obligee.” third duty to or to the impaired right its risk and National’s security. remaining 775 F.2d from boa Ins. Co. v. United reimbursement for Penn accordingly (Fed.Cir.1985). Thus, liable City the The is when Corp., actual loss. Nat'l Sur. obligation National’s underlying the surety performs (Third) 1548; Restatement at paying or subcontrac by completing work 37(4). Guaranty § Suretyship and tors, surety only fulfills not its contrac the the under the bond but also obligation tual City concluded that the Having contractual duties general contractor’s National, we address must reimburse Like obligee and to subcontractors. the City in the cross-appeal, which City’s the wise, and the of subcontractors right the liability it is immune from asserts paid from funds subrogated to be one sound Penn National’s suit is because in obligee equity. arises Sure held Arkansas, municipal corpo in tort. In ing contract, rights in projects with these subject ties bond are to suit rations Dist., expectation County legitimate Sch. and with the Bankston v. Pulaski mind (1984), security ensuring discharge Ark. Harris, torts, Battle v. and for intentional obligation properly ap will be underlying (1989), 241, 766 S.W.2d failure to obligee’s ultimate plied. The City car negligence unless the not for but security thus not a properly apply that is covering partic liability insurance ries Bankston, 665 at 862 tort. S.W.2d Cf. Ann. act. Ark.Code. negligent ular that a district was not im (finding school (Michie 1996) munici (stating § 21-9-301 implied from a suit for breach of mune liability are “immune palities warranty involving defects the sewer ....”); damages for Caddo Val from suit as a system of a home built students Ark. ley George, 340 “Clearly, private a project). vocational (2000) (“[A] municipal corporation’s causing for contract party would be liable only begins immunity negligеnt acts to one not entitled to paid funds to be over off.”). coverage leaves its insurance where no reason to excuse the them. There is City no evidence here that There is [City] conduct here.” Trans from such liability covering Penn carries insurance america, 32 Fed. Cl. at 316. suit, on City and the focuses National’s reversed, and the case judgment City Penn National’s assertion to the district court with di- is remanded by mak duty as a stakeholder breached judgment a in favor of rections to enter “wrongful” payment a to Mitсhell. ing with the views Penn National consistent language contends that this opinion. in this set forth testimony of Penn Nation deposition representative designated corporate al’s RILEY, concurring. Judge, Circuit claim is make clear that Penn National’s claim, from which the really negligence a the court’s deci- Although agree I with immune. disagree. City is We sion, express I concur to two concerns: first, of federal imposition our does Although Penn National may which not com- subrogation principles duty, breached a claim-that Arkansas courts would nec- port with how as one duty appropriately is more viewed case; second, our essarily decide this equity. Bonds arising from respected of a Arkansas federal reversal contracts, suretyship status is cre are Arkansas judge, who is more familiar with agreement through tripartite ated Nevertheless, (the than we are. legal practices surety) “whereby party one becomes just I am convinced we reach result. obligor’s debt principal’s for the liable (2000) R.) (Smith, рrecedent (“Subroga- J. Lavenski the lack of Arkansas Given equitable of in addressing application steeped equity tion is a doctrine and in the a stakeholder subrogation against generally governed by equitable princi- it is reasonable for this City’s position, ples.”). anticipate Arkansas courts would court to in equities clearly this case favor analogous precedent from the Unit- utilize National, not or Mitchell. of Federal Claims.7 We ed States Court City, disputed as stakeholder Supreme can take comfort in the Arkansas funds, should have retained those funds for repeated equity assurances Court’s protection unpaid subcontractors justice are at the heart of surety. and the I am vulnerable confident See, Paul Fire subrogation. e.g., St. & our not an decision is affront to Arkansas Guard, Murray

Marine Ins. Co. v. Rather, good-faith law. our decision is a (2001) 351, 180, 343 Ark. just endeavor to reach the result Arkansas (“The subrogation] doctrine is [equitable courts would have reached if faced with flexible and extends as deeply rooted and equities. the same justice. far to do The doctrine as needed doing complete its basis the has as

perfect justice parties between the without subrogation

regard Equitable to form.... ‍‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​​‍a and is given application

is liberal broad in enough every to include instance which America, UNITED STATES of acting voluntarily, paid one not has person, Appellee, primarily a for which another debt was party liable and which that other should (citations omitted); Land paid.”) have Fed. Eugene LEATHERS, Appellant. Farming

Bank Louis v. Richland St. No. 03-1181. Co., 954, 180 Ark. S.W.2d (1929) (“[A]s subrogation the doctrine of Appeals, Court of United States equity courts of for the was evolved Eighth Circuit. injustice, prevention of it is administered Sept. Submitted: 2003. legal right, principle not as a but the is justice applied to subserve the ends of Filed: 2004. Jan. particular in the case before equity do En Banc Rehearing Rehearing Therefore no rule can be laid court. Denied: March 2004. application, down for its universal it applicable depends whether particular and circum-

upon the facts arises.”);

stances of each case as it see Foods, Chicago Inc. Title

also Welch

Ins. See, e.g., appear Transamerica Premier Ins. Co. v. them.... If it is made States, (1994); officials, 32 Fed. Cl. 313-14 Government's after due notice of the giving equitable right Newark Ins. Co. v. United 144 Ct.Cl. facts rise to an in the (1959) F.Supp. ("Surely plaintiff surety company, plaintiff's a and of the stakeholder, out, caught right, paid in the middle between assertion of such a without claimants, cannot, effect, competing doing, money ques- two valid reason for so plaintiff, decide the merits of their claims the mere tion to someone other than the physical delivering plaintiff judgment.”). act of the stake to one of be will entitled to

Case Details

Case Name: Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance v. City of Pine Bluff

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 15, 2004

Citation: 354 F.3d 945

Docket Number: 02-3600, 02-3646, 02-3735

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.